Re-sign the Sedins?

Rumsfeld wrote:I don't think any of us were happy with The Sedins or Luongo's performances in the Final. Kesler was seriously hurt but still worked hard and skated his ass off. That put the load squarely on our other three superstars and leaders and they failed to deliver in a pretty big way.

It's true that Luongo was terrific in three of the games but he was so spectacularly bad in at least three of the losses that it's hard to feel any better about his performance than the twins'.

Luckily we don't have to worry about seeing that again because there's very little chance we are in a Final for quite some time.

I'm over it I tell ya ... any day now.

Right, because 3 good starts is the same as 0 good games, right? Luongo won 3 games for us. The Sedins won 0 for us. Their offense was non-existent, yet people like to sweep that under the rug.

Luongo also lost three games for us. And don't give me the whole "we didn't score any goals" speech, I've heard it before. Lou let in everything directed at the fucking net in those games. We weren't going to win them with goaltending like that and the whole team knew it.

Anyway I sure as hell haven't been sweeping the Sedins' shortcomings under the rug so you might wanna change your tampon on that score.

Rumsfeld wrote:Luongo also lost three games for us. And don't give me the whole "we didn't score any goals" speech, I've heard it before. Lou let in everything directed at the fucking net in those games. We weren't going to win them with goaltending like that and the whole team knew it.

Anyway I sure as hell haven't been sweeping the Sedins' shortcomings under the rug so you might wanna change your tampon on that score.

I also think those same qualities render them less effective against the meaner, bigger teams in the league.

Hence the desperate need for more assholes, and the bigger the better.

It's easier to say that Luongo lost us 3 games because he's the goalie and it's easy to attribute losses to him. But I would argue the Sedins contributed to our losses as much, if not more, by their lack of offensive production. In fact, the Sedins weren't scoring, and were getting scored on defensively. They were absolute garbage on the ice in the SCF in particular.

Rumsfeld wrote:Luongo also lost three games for us. And don't give me the whole "we didn't score any goals" speech, I've heard it before. Lou let in everything directed at the fucking net in those games. We weren't going to win them with goaltending like that and the whole team knew it.

Anyway I sure as hell haven't been sweeping the Sedins' shortcomings under the rug so you might wanna change your tampon on that score.

I also think those same qualities render them less effective against the meaner, bigger teams in the league.

Hence the desperate need for more assholes, and the bigger the better.

It's easier to say that Luongo lost us 3 games because he's the goalie and it's easy to attribute losses to him. But I would argue the Sedins contributed to our losses as much, if not more, by their lack of offensive production. In fact, the Sedins weren't scoring, and were getting scored on defensively. They were absolute garbage on the ice in the SCF in particular.

Ya sorta like Chara against Chicago. Brutal. On the ice for almost all of their goals. Trade the bum.

Rumsfeld wrote:Luongo also lost three games for us. And don't give me the whole "we didn't score any goals" speech, I've heard it before. Lou let in everything directed at the fucking net in those games. We weren't going to win them with goaltending like that and the whole team knew it.

Anyway I sure as hell haven't been sweeping the Sedins' shortcomings under the rug so you might wanna change your tampon on that score.

I also think those same qualities render them less effective against the meaner, bigger teams in the league.

Hence the desperate need for more assholes, and the bigger the better.

It's easier to say that Luongo lost us 3 games because he's the goalie and it's easy to attribute losses to him. But I would argue the Sedins contributed to our losses as much, if not more, by their lack of offensive production. In fact, the Sedins weren't scoring, and were getting scored on defensively. They were absolute garbage on the ice in the SCF in particular.

So you figure a straight-up Lou-for-Ovechkin swap is out of the question now?

What does Luongo have to do with the Sedins anyway? Again, at least Luongo got 2 1-0 shutouts. He contributed. He wasn't perfect but he contributed. The Sedin's didn't contribute. They were absolutely dominated defensively and did jack all offensively. When we needed some offense our best players wilted away and allowed themselves to get punched in the face by little shrimps. The Sedins were an absolute embarrassment.

So Hank said today he and Dank want to stay and expect to begin negotiations on an extension sometime next week. When asked if they were only looking for one year deals he said we'll see. But would like it done before camp opens, although there is no time table

It's easier to say that Luongo lost us 3 games because he's the goalie and it's easy to attribute losses to him. But I would argue the Sedins contributed to our losses as much, if not more, by their lack of offensive production. In fact, the Sedins weren't scoring, and were getting scored on defensively. They were absolute garbage on the ice in the SCF in particular.

Can't have it both ways Pauster. Either it was a team win that shut down the Bruins for those three games in which Luongo was the winning golaie or it wasn't. In which case he should also be the goat in the four losses in which he stunk. Soooooo maybe it was the team defensive play that was up and down like an hf poster on cheap coffee and red bull or it was the goalie . Which is it Pauster ?

Something tells me with your finger pointing and focus on individuals on a TEAM, that you haven't had much experience in the participation in TEAM sports. Just an observation BTW. For all I know you could have been a great hockey player as a youngster who was just held back by some shitty coaches and was a couple bad breaks away from making your mark in the NHL.

The_Pauser wrote: When we needed some offense our best players wilted away and allowed themselves to get punched in the face by little shrimps.

This is boring crap, which Henrik addressed a while ago IIRC: "If we fight back, we're 'losing our composure', and if we don't fight back, we're wimps. It's been that way since the day we came into the league and it never changes."

The_Pauser wrote: When we needed some offense our best players wilted away and allowed themselves to get punched in the face by little shrimps.

This is boring crap, which Henrik addressed a while ago IIRC: "If we fight back, we're 'losing our composure', and if we don't fight back, we're wimps. It's been that way since the day we came into the league and it never changes."

I don't see fighting back against a guy who is standing there punching you in the face as losing composure and anyone who suggests that is a complete idiot. But really, Daniel getting punched by Marchand and doing nothing about it is symbolic of our 2011 SCF. We just stood there and didn't do a damn thing and just gave the Bruins the Cup on our home ice. The Sedins no-showed the ENTIRE series. People who enjoy fellating them will just deflect attention to Luongo and others because they can't stand the fact their wimpy twins could be such poor players in big games.

Pauser has a very compelling argument. I doubt there are many 'Nuck fans out there not smarting from that image of Dank getting speedbagged by Marchand. Losing your composure is taking a cheap shot in response to some rough treatment from the opposition. Throwing a few punches to defend yourself is just being a man. This was Daniel's failure, the team's failure (for not sticking up for him) and even AV's failure with his "we'll get them back on the powerplay" approach. I can only imagine what Tortorella would have said to the team if he was coach at the time.

The_Pauser wrote:I don't see fighting back against a guy who is standing there punching you in the face as losing composure and anyone who suggests that is a complete idiot.

Absolute utter fucking horseshit imp pauster.

The fool on that play was the referee and the league who did nothing. It occurred in a scrum well after the whistle.

The mantra from the management through to the coaches was play between the whistles.

Now you're just coming up with crap to blindly defend them. I was embarrassed to be a Canuck fan when I saw Daniel let himself continue to take punches to the face without responding. Yes the official was a complete idiot on the play too, but for once in his life couldn't Daniel have stood up and been a man and fight back? That's the problem with these guys, they don't fight back. And since they're the leadership group their attitude is reflected with the team. We don't fight back. We go down in games and there's no fight in the tank. We just wilt away like little bitches. Embarrassing!